Talk:Great War
Great War Map Not that its a big deal, but the map is a little wrong. It fails to take into account the Japanese-controlled Kurile Islands, extending to the tip of Kamchatka, which were claimed through peaceful agreement in the 1870s with Russia. St. Lawrence I must say TurtleFan, your speculative addition to the St. Lawrence Campaign more closely reflects your enmity to the British rather than anything the Québécois would be feeling at this point in time and certainly not anything mentioned in the books. See, for example, Lucien Galtier's comments to O'Doull when he came courting Nicole. ML4E 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Republic of Qubec There was a Republic created as a result of this campaign. Its omission from the previous version was a glaring oversight. Also, see Talon's speech at the proclamation of the Republic for evidence of disaffection among Quebecois. Hell, if there was no such disaffection, the State Department never would have nor could have created the Republic in the first place. Turtle Fan 21:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC) By the way, why does this article have information ad nauseum about the North American war and nary a peep about the other four continents'? That should be addressed. Of course, no one will ever have time to do it as it would be such a big job. Turtle Fan 21:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Okay, I'll take a look at it when I have a chance. I just think you are overstating French-Canadian disatisfaction and opression. Also, Talon is hardly a credable source for information. Galtier was a lot more ambivalent as I recall. Right now though, I have the Battle of Bealeton and the Storming of Washington City brewing. ML4E 19:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC) I suspect that you both are to an extent right on this issue. Galtier was uncertain, and actually quite sentimental about being Canadian. On the other hand, the Republic has obviously been very successful, suggesting that people, while perhaps ambivalent, weren't actively opposing becoming indepedent. Thanks for building on GOTS, ML4E. TR 19:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Casulaties Casualty figures are good, but I'd put them somewhere else in the section, not leading off the lead-off paragraph, which talks about something else altogether, Anon. Turtle Fan 14:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC) I was thinking that the death toll would be the most immediate and significant result of the war, and should lead off the graph. I was re-reading "The Center Cannot Hold," and the million and a half figure for the US came up in one of the Morell or Dowling POVs - since it was set in the twenties, there would have been time to figure out hard-and-fast casualty figures; The figure for the CSA is more of an estimate coming from when Morell is talking to his Confederate opposite number after the Great War cease-fire in Breakthroughs. - Vivisfugue Anglic spelling I hope there are no objections, but I americanized some spelling in the article (armour->armor, etc) as the article is almost entirely regarding the US/CS. This is a guideline used on Wikipedia (just as a reference), but if it stubs any toes, I can revert if needed. - Chairboy 16:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC) American spelling all the way! TR 22:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Dambed Yankees! ;) No, actually I am okay with that and will try to keep that in mind. However does that mean that the "Two Georges" articles I have been doing should use British spelling? ML4E 00:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Sure....?TR 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Error in Nomenclature The Confederates didn't have any Monitors. You should replace the word with Ironclads. Monitors had turrets. No turreted CSS vessels were used in action during the Civil War. Ah, but this is the Great War that we're discussing here, and there certainly were Confederate monitors in operation - one was featured in Paul Mantarakis' first POV in American Front, while another CS monitor was destroyed by Gordon McSweeney in Breakthroughs. Jelay14 08:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC) :I never noticed this before. How the hell did that poster read an article entitled "Great War" somehow get wrapped up around the Monitor/Ironclads thing? TR 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC) ::Beats me. The article is so very long, you'd think he'd notice he wasn't in Kansas anymore. Turtle Fan 20:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Request I request that someone disable the "no editing rule" 18:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC) :It is unprotected now. TR 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) ::I didn't realize it was protected to begin with. But we don't have "no editing rules," we have semi-protection and full protection to ensure that articles are not subject to fly-by vandalism. Turtle Fan 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Quadruple Alliance The Ottomans were not original signatories to the Alliance. That was Italy, a fact commented on in WiH. The Ottomans joined the war, and so became Alliance members by default. TR 22:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC) :And the Italians dropped out. But they were still founders, unlike the Turks. :What an odd edit to make. Turtle Fan 03:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC) References to OTL are unnecessary. References to OTL are unnecessary. Take the approach that you are a historian of that timeline. TR 23:43, September 23, 2009 (UTC) Renaming? I think this article should be renamed "Great War (Southern Victory)" as it could easily get confused with OTL's Great War. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 02:56, June 1, 2012 (UTC) New Zealand New Zealand has just been added to the chart. This is probably realistic, but is NZ ever mentioned in SV? If not, it should probably be removed.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:01, October 7, 2017 (UTC) :I don't recall it ever being mentioned, just Australia, so yes, it probably should be removed. ML4E (talk) 15:31, October 7, 2017 (UTC) ::No, it's not mentioned. It should come out. TR (talk) 16:53, October 7, 2017 (UTC) Note for Ray Yanma: while it's logical to assume New Zealand fought for the Entente along with the rest of the British Empire, that is not stated in the text and should not be presumed. We stick very closely to what Turtledove actually wrote. Anything else is called speculation, and should only be done when absolutely necessary. For example, in Settling Accounts one Cabinet office suddenly has one man out and a new man in, and we have to speculate that one resigned and the other was appointed on the fly, because if we didn't give that much minimum speculation, the men's articles wouldn't make much sense. In The War Between the Provinces, one Earl suddenly has his semi official nickname change, we have to speculate that it's because he lost two big battles, otherwise the in-universe bit would be broken. This system of avoiding speculation is confusing and arbitrary and difficult to learn, but once you do learn, it becomes like second nature.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 04:06, October 8, 2017 (UTC) :If it were arbitrary, you would not have been able to outline it. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:21, October 8, 2017 (UTC)